Seòmar agus comataidhean

The member raises excellent points. Those are exactly the sorts of tools that we have as we move towards a circular economy and begin to get rid of waste. We are talking particularly about plastic waste, but waste of any materials or energy in our society is no good.

The extended producer responsibility scheme for plastic is a UK-wide initiative. It was two weeks ago, I think, that we passed at the committee the Scottish statutory instrument to start collecting data for the scheme. From 2024, large packaging producers will need to report on what their packaging is made of and how much packaging they produce—that sort of thing—and in 2025 they will pay fees based on how much packaging they produce. Those fees will be collected and distributed to local authorities to help them pay for recycling. It is another producer responsibility scheme in which the cost of handling materials at the end of their use will be passed to the producers of the materials, rather than being borne by the public purse. It is an exciting initiative that will, I hope, transform our recycling and the design of packaging materials, because it will incentivise producers of packaging to use more sustainable materials, more recyclable materials, and, I hope, less material altogether. It will be advantageous to them to do that under the fee scheme.

The other thing that you touched on was the circular economy bill, which is largely about establishing new powers. One of the things that was consulted on for the bill was powers to put charges on single-use items, and one of the things that we will look at next in the single-use space is single-use beverage cups. The bill is intended to establish powers so that we can be adaptable as we go forward and use targeted approaches, much like was done with plastic bags under our current powers. We know how effective that was in reducing litter and damage to the environment.

I do not know the answer to that.

The fees structure is intended to cover just the costs, and, where reduced inspections are required, that means a reduced cost. The fees are not a money-making mechanism. If we have to use fewer resources doing fewer checks, we do not need to charge as much.

Again, I will give you a general overview and then officials can come in with more detail.

The statutory instrument and the fees relate only to high-risk products that are commercially imported in large quantities for business interests. One plant in a person’s hand luggage is not a high-risk product—it is low risk. Checks on low-risk products have been delayed by another 18 months. The legislation is specifically about high-risk products. It is about commercial things—imports that we know about that we can the trace through the country. It is about ensuring that they are right. We can, of course, check up to 100 per cent of them; in fact, the default fee is for a 100 per cent check. If, for example, as Caspian Richards said, there were woody products that posed a very high risk, checks of up to 100 per cent could be done, because such materials can be traced. If there is a lower risk, the number of checks can be lowered on the basis of the risk assessment.

I do not know whether my officials want to add anything to that.

I will you give my layperson’s interpretation, and officials can come in with technical details if I miss anything. Due to Brexit, it is now necessary to do these checks on all high-risk products coming from the EU in addition to those coming from the rest of the world. Therefore, these checks aim to bring how we treat products from the EU into alignment with how we treat products from the rest of the world. Obviously, the Scottish Government did not wish for Brexit to happen or for these checks to be necessary, but it is important that we have alignment between how we handle products from the EU and how we handle products from the rest of the world. England and Wales have already put in place such a risk-based scheme.

The EU scheme, which, of course, is what would have been used to check these products as they came into the EU is also a risk-based scheme. Therefore, it is the same principle and the same structure of scheme, but we must now bring that into Scottish legislation.

Again, I will give you the layperson’s view, and officials can come in with the details. The new regime involves the same kind of risk profiling as the existing scheme. As plants come in, we have to check that they are the correct plants, as identified, that they are healthy and that they are not bringing in pathogens. Risk assessments will be based on what we grow here, what pathogens might spread in the UK and what might create risks for our crops and commercial interests. My officials might like to add some detail.

I will refer to my officials on that one.

That is an excellent question. If you were one of the 3 per cent chosen to have your truck full of potatoes checked, it would be unfair if you had to pay the fee, because those checks are done randomly, so the costs are spread around the sector. For each individual consignment, the cost is spread across the whole sector so that the fees are fair and the person whose individual consignment is chosen is not unfairly penalised.

Thank you for making time to consider the Plant Health (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022, which is a draft Scottish statutory instrument. The regulations are being made to amend Scottish legislation in the field of plant health, particularly as it relates to fees payable by an importer of a consignment originating in a third country in respect of the physical and identity checks of plants and plant products.

The import fees are being amended as a consequence of a new Great Britain-focused risk-based frequency-of-checks regime that is being introduced across GB from 22 July 2022. The new methodology is set out in the statutory instrument PH/038. The revised fees apply to consignments of all high-risk products that are imported from all third countries as well as lower-risk regulated products from all third countries except the European Union, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

The regulations also amend the Plant Health (Fees) (Forestry) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015. The forestry fees regulations contain provisions relating to export certification fees for forestry products under the United Kingdom Government’s movement assistance scheme, to provide that such fees are not payable in relation to exports from Scotland to Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. The movement assistance scheme was originally scheduled to end in December 2022, but the UK Government later extended the scheme, which is now due to end in December 2023. The 2022 regulations amend the forestry fees regulations to reflect that later date. These regulations are therefore necessary and appropriate.

My officials and I are happy to take any questions.

It is not a matter of deficiencies in the existing scheme. The EU scheme was based on risks for the EU. Now, we are bringing in this legislation at a GB level—the fees are related to Scotland, but the SI is at a GB level. Therefore, with regard to the risk assessment, although the methodology is very similar, the risks that we face in GB are different from the risks that are faced by the EU. For example, there are many citrus fruit growers in the EU. We do not grow citrus fruits in the UK, so the risk assessment on those products would be different in GB. It is not a matter of efficiencies; it is a matter of making appropriate checks for the risks that we have here.